coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
7.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Lublin.
8.  On 6 June 2007 the Lublin District Court convicted the applicant of several robberies and sentenced him to 3 years and 6 months’ imprisonment. By a judgment of 28 December 2007 the Lublin Regional Court upheld the first‑instance judgment.
9.  On 4 January 2008 the applicant requested the Lublin Regional Court to grant him a legal-aid lawyer for the purpose of lodging a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court.
10.  On 7 February 2008 a legal-aid lawyer was assigned.
11.  By a letter of 14 March 2008 the lawyer informed the court in a one sentence-long opinion that he had not found any grounds on which to prepare a cassation appeal. This statement did not include any reasons for the refusal to lodge a cassation appeal.
12.  By a letter of 17 March 2008 the court forwarded the lawyer’s statement to the applicant. The letter read as follows:
“...The Lublin Regional Court informs you that your legal-aid lawyer, advocate Mr W.W., informed the court in writing that he had not found any grounds to prepare a cassation appeal. In consequence, the time-limit for lodging a cassation appeal by a lawyer of your own choice expires on 7 April 2008.”
13.  The letter as well as the opinion were served on the applicant on an unspecified date.
14.  On 27 March 2008 the Lublin Regional Court refused to assign a new legal-aid lawyer to the applicant. The court stated that because the previous legal-aid lawyer had not found any grounds on which to draw up a cassation appeal, the mere fact that the applicant disagreed with this decision could not require the verification of this opinion by successive lawyers.
5.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Lublin.
6.  By a judgment of 19 November 2003 the Lublin Regional Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against a second-instance administrative decision of 25 March 2003 by which the second-instance authority had refused to acknowledge that the applicant’s ailment was of an occupational character.
7.  This judgment was served on the applicant on 27 January 2004.
8.  On 27 February 2004 the applicant requested to be granted legal aid.
9.  On an unspecified date the Lublin Bar Association refused to assign a lawyer to the case. Subsequently, on 26 March 2004 it allowed the applicant’s request after the Supreme Administrative Court had instructed it that it had no right to refuse.
10.  On 19 November 2004 the lawyer assigned to the case had effective access to the case-file.  On 1 December 2004 the lawyer lodged a cassation appeal together with a request for retrospective leave to appeal out of time with the Lublin Administrative Court.
11.  By a decision of 1 April 2005 that court rejected the cassation appeal. It noted that the seven-day time-limit for lodging a request for leave to appeal out of time had started, at the latest and if counted in a manner most advantageous to the applicant, on the day when the legal-aid lawyer had had an opportunity to have effective access to the case file. In the present case that time-limit had started to run on 19 November 2004, while the request had been lodged with the court on 1 December 2004. It had therefore to be rejected for failure to comply with the time-limit.
12.  The lawyer appealed. On 1 April 2005 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the contested decision and shared the legal view expressed by the regional court.
4.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Girnyy.
5.  In 1999 a medical commission established that the applicant had lost 40% of his working ability due to an occupational disease received during his work in coal mines.
6.  In January 2000 the applicant instituted civil proceedings in the Leninskyy District Court of Kirovograd (“the Leninskyy Court”) against his former employers, two coal mining companies, seeking recovery of the occupational disability allowance.
7.  On 6 March 2009, following two remittals of the case to the first-instance court for fresh examination, the proceedings were completed by a final ruling of the Supreme Court rejecting the applicant’s request for leave to appeal in cassation. As a result, the applicant’s claim was allowed in part.
8.  In early April 2009 the above ruling was served on the applicant.
9.  According to the Government, the proceedings were delayed for a year and three months due to financial expert examinations conducted three times at the applicant’s request and for six months due to some procedural flaws in his appeals which had to be rectified.
10.  Being an owner of a land plot, the applicant was a member of a gardening society, a non-profit organisation taking care of the area in question.
11.  In October 2006 he instituted civil proceedings in the Leninskyy Court against the aforementioned society considering that it had not complied with its duties.
12.  By their decisions of 19 April, 18 May and 17 December 2007, the Leninskyy Court, the Kirovograd Regional Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, respectively, found against the applicant.
4.  The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in Bitlis.
5.  On 29 April 2000 the applicant was arrested and imprisoned after a criminal conviction.
6.  During the imprisonment it was found that the applicant was mistakenly incarcerated due to his personal identity card being used by his brother in commission of a crime.
7.  On 25 July 2000 the Istanbul State Security Court found in favour of the applicant and ordered his release.
8.  The applicant could only be released on 7 August 2000 because of extended paperwork.
9.  On 4 February 2002 the Istanbul State Security Court ordered the acquittal of the applicant.
10.  On 27 October 2000 the applicant lodged criminal complaint with the Bakırköy Assize Court requesting compensation for his unlawful detention for a period of three months and eight days, pursuant to Law no. 466.
11.  During the course of the proceedings, the court held twenty one hearings. The applicant was present only at one of them, which was held on 19 July 2001. The applicant’s lawyer did not attend to any of the hearings despite having been notified.
12.  On 7 March 2007 the court partially granted the applicant’s request.
13.  On 15 April 2009 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the first-instance court on the ground that the proceedings before the Istanbul State Security Court had not been finalised at the time when the applicant brought the compensation action before the assize court. It held that the applicant had failed to comply with a prerequisite in order to bring such an action.
14.  On 25 September 2009 the court dismissed the case in line with the decision of the Court of Cassation.
15.  According to the information in the case file the proceedings are currently pending before the Court of Cassation.
5.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Rogaška Slatina.
6.  On 28 April 1997 the applicant instituted civil proceedings before the Celje District Court seeking compensation for damage sustained at the workplace.
7.  20 August 2002 the first-instance issued a decision on costs. The defendant appealed.
8.  On 5 February 2003 the Celje Higher Court upheld the appeal.
9.  On 4 May 2004 the Celje District Court delivered an interim judgment deliberating on the responsibility and reserving the determination on the amount of compensation and costs for the final judgment. The defendant appealed.
10.  On 11 May 2006 the Celje Higher Court upheld the first-instance judgment.
11.  On 22 March 2007 the first-instance court delivered a judgment, which was served on the applicant on 6 July 2007.
4.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Izyum.
5.  In May 1994 the applicant initiated a land dispute with her neighbours.
6.  On 29 August 2005 the proceedings, which had taken place before the courts of three levels of jurisdiction, were completed by a final ruling of the Supreme Court allowing the applicant’s claim in part.
7.  In the course of the proceedings, there was one remittal of the case from the appellate court to the first-instance court for fresh consideration. The courts also ordered seven forensic technical expert examinations.
8.  There were several adjournments in the proceedings due to the parties’ failure to appear for hearings.
4.  The applicant was born in 1941 and lives in Sosnowiec.
5.  By a judgment of 8 August 2006 the Kraków Regional Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against a second-instance administrative decision of 25 August 2005 by which the second-instance authority had refused to acknowledge that the applicant’s ailment was of an occupational character.
6.  This judgment was served on the applicant on 25 September 2006.
7.  By a decision of 19 October 2006 the court granted legal aid to the applicant.
8.  The local Bar Association assigned a lawyer to the case by a decision of 2 November 2006. This decision was served on the lawyer on 8 November 2006. On 13 November 2006 the applicant gave a power of attorney to the lawyer.
9.  On 1 December 2006 the lawyer submitted a cassation appeal to the Regional Administrative Court.
10.  On 29 December 2006 that court held that the time-limit for lodging a cassation appeal had expired on 25 October 2006, thirty days after the applicant had been served with the judgment. The court rejected the cassation appeal on the ground that under the applicable laws the fact that the party was not represented by a lawyer and requested for legal aid only after having been served with the judgment had no bearing on the running of the time-limit for submitting a cassation appeal. It also noted that the legal-aid lawyer had failed to submit a request for leave to appeal out of time together with the cassation appeal.
11.  The applicant’s lawyer appealed. He acknowledged that he had not submitted the request for leave to appeal out of time. However, he was of the view that this omission would not be relevant for the court’s decision to accept the cassation appeal for examination.
12.  On 13 April 2007 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the contested decision and shared the legal view expressed by the first-instance court.
4.  The applicant was born in 1942 and lives in Besian.
5.  On 14 June 2002 he was arrested by the Greek authorities at the Greek-Albanian borders under the charge of drug trafficking, as 25 kg of heroin were found in the car he was driving.
6.  The same day, the Ioannina First Instance Prosecutor, prosecuted the applicant for illegal drug trafficking and ordered his detention on remand (order no. 25/2002).
7.  The applicant alleges that his arrest was a set-up by a German national with whom he had disagreements in Germany - where the applicant had allegedly lived for an unspecified period of time - and that the drugs were put in the car without his knowledge.
8.  On 20 May 2003 the Ioannina First Instance Criminal Court convicted the applicant and sentenced him to twenty years of imprisonment (judgment no. 81/2003).
9.  On an unspecified date the applicant lodged an appeal against the first instance court’s decision.
10.  On 5 June 2007 the Ioannina Court of Appeal upheld the first judgment (judgment no. 58/2007).
11.  On 8 September 2007 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Court of Cassation challenging the abovementioned decision. In the grounds of appeal no complaint was raised by the applicant regarding the interpretation service at the moment he was arrested and afterwards during the proceedings.
12.  The hearing, which was originally set for 12 March 2008, was subsequently adjourned to 19 November 2008. As it transpires from the case file, the latter proceedings are still pending before the Court of Cassation.
4.  All of the applicants have either tenancy rights to their flats on the basis of occupancy vouchers (yaşayış sahəsi orderi) issued by the relevant executive authorities or ownership rights to them on the basis of an ownership certificate issued by the competent domestic authority (see Appendix - Table I).
5.  In all cases, the applicants’ flats were unlawfully occupied by internally displaced persons (“IDPs”) from different regions of Azerbaijan under occupation by Armenian military forces following the Armenian‑Azerbaijani conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh.
6.  The applicants lodged separate civil actions before the domestic courts seeking the eviction of the IDPs from their flats.
7.  On the dates indicated in the Appendix (Table I), the applicants’ claims were granted by various domestic courts, which ordered the eviction of the IDPs from their flats.
8.  The respective judgments became final and enforceable. However, the IDP families refused to comply with those judgments and despite the applicants’ complaints to various authorities, the judgments were not enforced.
4.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Martin.
5.  A person whom the applicant operated on vertebrae after a traffic accident alleged that her health was permanently damaged due to malpractice in the course of the surgery.
6.  The police opened criminal proceedings in that respect on 27 October 2004. In the course of 2005 the police investigator heard several witnesses and obtained the opinion of an expert.
7.  On 30 December 2005 the investigator accused the applicant of having damaged the patient’s health. On 23 February 2006 a public prosecutor dismissed the applicant’s complaint against that decision.
8.  Between 11 May 2006 and 6 June 2006 three institutions informed the investigator that they were not in a position to review the expert’s opinion for various reasons. On 13 June 2006 the investigator heard three witnesses.
9.  On 28 August 2006 the investigator appointed a different institution with a view to obtaining a second expert opinion.
10.  On 16 February 2007 the injured party submitted the opinion of an expert elaborated in the context of civil proceedings concerning her claim for damages.
11.  On 21 May 2007 the institution appointed to submit an opinion on 28 August 2006 informed the investigator that all its experts considered themselves biased as they knew the applicant as a physician.
12.  On 1 June 2007 a different expert was appointed who submitted his opinion on 9 July 2007.
13.  After having taken further evidence the investigator proposed that the proceedings be discontinued on 28 August 2007. On 28 November 2007 a public prosecutor from the District Prosecutor’s Office in Martin discontinued the proceedings.
14.  The injured party filed a complaint on 31 December 2007. On 21 March 2008 a prosecutor of the Regional Prosecutor’s Office in Žilina quashed the decision to discontinue the proceedings. The case was returned to the police investigator on 4 April 2008.
15.  In May 2008 the investigator heard the experts and a witness. On 27 May 2008 it appointed an institution in the Czech Republic with a view to obtaining a counter-opinion. Upon the investigator’s request a public prosecutor transmitted the relevant documents, on 27 October 2008, to his Czech counter-part with a view to having them delivered to the institution concerned. The latter submitted the counter-opinion on 22 October 2009.
16.  On 25 November 2009 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint about the length of the proceedings. It held that their duration was due to difficulties of an objective nature in obtaining relevant expert evidence.
17.  On 12 February 2010 the District Prosecutor’s Office in Martin discontinued the proceedings on the ground that the facts imputed to the applicant had not occurred.
18.  On 2 June 2010 a public prosecutor of the Regional Prosecutor’s Office in Žilina quashed the decision and then discontinued the proceedings on a different ground, namely that the facts in issue do not constitute a criminal offence.
4.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Athens.
5.  On 15 October 2002 criminal proceedings were brought against him for fraud and forgery related offences.
6.  The hearing, which was originally set for 18 November 2004, was subsequently adjourned to 9 June 2005 due to absence of witnesses.
7.  A hearing took place on the aforementioned date and by judgment no. 41563/2005 the Athens First Instance Criminal Court convicted the applicant and sentenced him to twenty seven months of imprisonment.
8.  On the same date the applicant lodged an appeal with the Athens Criminal Court of Appeal challenging the court’s findings and its evaluation of the evidence.
9.  The hearing, which was originally set for 16 January 2006, was subsequently adjourned to 23 February 2007, on the applicant’s request.
10.  By judgment dated 28 February 2007 the Court of Appeal reduced the applicant’s sentence to six months of imprisonment (judgment no. 1943/2007).
11.  On 5 October 2007 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Court of Cassation.
12.  The hearing, which was originally set for 8 April 2008, was adjourned twice - to 21 October 2008 and subsequently to 28 April 2009 -due to lawyers’ strike.
13.  By judgment dated 27 May 2009 the Court of Cassation rejected the applicant’s allegations as unfounded, after having observed that the Court of Appeal’s decision was sufficiently reasoned (judgment no. 1281/2009). This judgment was finalised on 28 July 2009.
5.  All of the applicants have either tenancy rights to their flats on the basis of occupancy vouchers (yaşayış sahəsi orderi) issued by the relevant executive authorities or ownership rights to them on the basis of an ownership certificate issued by the competent domestic authority (see Appendix - Table I).
6.  In all five cases, the applicants’ flats were unlawfully occupied by internally displaced persons (“IDPs”) from different regions of Azerbaijan under occupation by Armenian military forces following the Armenian‑Azerbaijani conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh.
7.  The applicants lodged separate civil actions before the domestic courts seeking the eviction of the IDPs from their flats.
8.  On the dates indicated in the Appendix (Table I), the applicants’ claims were granted by different domestic courts, which ordered the eviction of the IDPs from their flats.
9.  The respective judgments became final and enforceable. However, the IDP families refused to comply with those judgments and despite the applicants’ complaints to various authorities, the judgments were not enforced.
10.  After the communication of application no. 7867/09 to the respondent Government, on 16 October 2010 the judgment in favour of Ms Lala Gasimova was enforced.
5.  The applicant party, Özgürlük ve Dayanışma Partisi (“the ÖDP”), is a Turkish political party based in Ankara.
6.  By a decree of 28 November 1998, the Higher Electoral Commission published a list of the eighteen political parties authorised to participate in the parliamentary and municipal elections to be held on 18 April 1999. The ÖDP featured on the list. In order to be able to participate in the elections in question, the political parties had to have had, for at least six months prior to the elections, branches in no fewer than half the country’s provinces and to have already organised their party conference.
7.  On 23 September 1998 the ÖDP applied to the Ministry of Finance for the financial assistance available to political parties under Article 68 of the Constitution.
8.  By a decision of 23 November 1998, the Ministry of Finance refused the application on the ground that only political parties meeting the criteria laid down by Law no. 2820 on political parties were eligible for public funding.
9.  On 29 December 1998 the ÖDP brought proceedings in the Ankara Administrative Court seeking the setting-aside of the decision of 23 November 1998. The ÖDP began by pointing out that the Constitution itself provided that “the State shall grant political parties sufficient and equitable funding” and that “the law shall define the principles applicable to party funding, members’ subscriptions and donations”. The applicant party observed in particular that the criteria laid down by the Law on political parties excluded parties which were not represented in Parliament from entitlement to State subsidies. Pointing to the difficulty of carrying out political activities and campaigning without the necessary financial resources, it contended that the statutory exclusion was unconstitutional and contrary to the principles of a democratic State, to the State’s duty to promote democratic rights and freedoms, and to the principle of non‑discrimination. Furthermore, the provisions in question were in breach of international human rights protection instruments.
10.  In a judgment of 29 September 1999, the Ankara Administrative Court rejected the application lodged by the ÖDP, on the ground that the latter did not satisfy the criteria laid down by Law no. 2820 on political parties. The court did not rule on the plea of unconstitutionality raised by the ÖDP.
11.  The ÖDP lodged an appeal on points of law against the judgment of 29 September 1999, reiterating the arguments it had submitted at first instance.
12.  In a judgment delivered on 25 April 2002 and served on the applicant party on 10 July 2002, the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the impugned judgment, which it found to be in accordance with the rules of procedure and law.
6.  The applicant was born in 1973 and lives in Moscow.
7.  From 14 March to 6 October 2005 the applicant was held in remand prison IZ-77/1 in Moscow. He was accommodated in Cell 243 which measured approximately 11 square metres. The cell had one window and the toilet was located inside the cell, separated with a brick partition approximately 1.2 metre in height. It disposed of four sleeping places. Detainees were allowed one hour of outdoor exercise per day.
8.  The parties disagreed on the number of inmates in Cell 243.
9.  According to the applicant, Cell 243 was constantly overcrowded. It was designed for two inmates but actually housed four persons. He referred to the Court’s findings in respect of the same cell in the case of Starokadomskiy v. Russia (no. 42239/02, §§ 23-24 and 42, 31 July 2008).
10.  The Government maintained that the number of detainees in Cell 243 had not exceeded two persons. In support of their position, they enclosed with their observations on the admissibility and merits of the case, a certificate issued by the prison governor on 5 April 2011 and selected pages from the prison population register covering the period between 16 March and 6 October 2005.
11.  On 16 January 2012, further to the Court’s request for more detailed factual information on the number of detainees in Cell 243, the Government submitted the following material:
– a certificate issued by the prison governor on 27 December 2011, according to which Cell 243 accommodated two persons during the entire period of the applicant’s detention;
– an undated certificate from the deputy head of the relevant department, according to which there were two detainees in Cell 243;
– every second page from the prison population register covering the period between 14 March and 30 September 2005.
12.  On 7 March 2012, in response to the Court’s request for clarifications about the origin of visible corrections of the number of detainees in Cell 243 in the prison population register, the Government submitted that, upon making the enquiries, it had been established that the procedure for filling out the prison population register had been breached which had resulted in “careless filling [out]”, corrections and erasures. The head of the department who was responsible for overseeing the compliance with the procedure could not be disciplined because he had retired in 2006. The Government pointed out that the corrections had not been made “with a purpose to misrepresent reliable information but because of carelessness and inattention of the officers of the pre-trial detention centre”.